The State of the Race: The NYFCC Shakes Things Up

This morning, the New York Film Critics announced that they’re moving up their voting date to November 28, before the National Board of Review announces and becoming the first major critics groups to announce their choices. This could have been done for two reasons. The first is that they want to put distance between themselves and the other award announcements. This, because they can no longer tolerate being one more member of the orgy. It could also be because they want to be first. I doubt that’s the reason. I think they are trying to create distance.

Let’s face it. No critics group with any self-respect wants to be associated with the ongoing circus of the awards race. They are all jointly horrified as to what it’s become. If they are somehow forced to write about it they must do so with either mild apathy or bemusement. Writing about the Oscars is itself judged fairly harshly by many film critics. Why, because to them it’s not about the films it’s about the contest, the sport, the competition, the money, the publicity. It’s about everything it shouldn’t be about. It has been polluted.

Writing a blog about the Oscars is sort of like being known as the girl who works the red light district. Everyone wants to know you but no one wants to admit they know you. Perhaps I’m overstating things. Either way, not a lot has changed. The fact remains that the film critics who take film criticism seriously do not take the Oscar race seriously.

The move to November 28 would be more suspect if it were any group BUT the NYFCC. While I don’t believe any group that hands out awards is immune to the inherent corruption that goes on in any sort of ceremony that requires voting, winners and losers — the NYFCC does try to maintain their integrity, as in, they want to sit as far across the room from Oscar as they possibly can. Here are the main reasons and let’s ruminate on the repercussions of this move:

1. It’s about the movies, stupid, not about the awards

It’s hard not to take them at their word when they say they are voting for the films and performers they thought were the best of the year. Full stop. It’s always hard to reach a consensus, though, ain’t it? Their press release mentions Oscar, just as it also mentions the need to disassociate from Oscar.

2. We like the influence. But we don’t shape our tastes to try to influence.

It’s a slippery slope, though, ain’t it. Aim directly at Oscar and you look too desperate. But if Oscar somehow matches your own tastes? Does that mean more influence? Greater importance? Or does it just mean you are happy that they, the lowbrow Academy, had the good taste to think the way you did? It’s hard to say how much or little the NYFCC values its influence. It probably has the best track record, going back many decades, as it was, for years, the only critics group that gave out awards. They aren’t like the Broadcast Film Critics who make a point every year to talk about how well they match up with Oscar — I don’t think they got the memo that you’re not supposed to admit that publicly.

We’ve entered a new era, though, where writing about the Oscars is an economic decision now. So you see journalists and film critics, some of whom are members of the NYFCC, writing about the Oscar race. And if they’re writing about the race they are going to be accepting advertising from publicists for those movies on their websites. Is that, then, a conflict of interest? Many of the Broadcast Film Critics also accept Oscar ads. The point here, to me, is that when you’re talking about voting, when you’re talking about winners of any art form, you are basically talking about the same species as Oscar. Maybe the NYFCC is the mustang and the Oscar is the Clydesdale but they’re both horses and it is most definitely still a race for “best.”

3. Just how influential are the NYFCC?

Unless they go totally off the rails like the LA Film Critics sometimes do, like, for instance, American Splendor for Best Picture, they are tremendously influential. The reason being, that award sits mighty prettily on the For Your Consideration ads. Also, a win like that puts a contender in the race. They stood strong behind The Kids Are All Right. It was probably headed for an Oscar nomination anyway but that was a very good example of a critics group altering the race early on. From then on, of course, it was The Social Network all the way (even the NYFCC gave their award to the Fincher film, as if we need reminding).

Here is a chart for the Los Angeles, the NYFCC and Oscar.

New York, 24 match-ups for Best Picture with Oscar.
National Board of Review, 19.

So historically, the New York Film Critics beat the National Board of Review. But who’s counting.

As you can see it almost never happens that the three line up at all. But it almost always happens that the film that wins the NYFCC almost always is, at the very least, nominated for Best Picture. What happened last year with the Social Network has never happened. No film has ever won all of the awards it won, even if you count only the major critics awards and forget all of the others — longtime awards bodies like the NYFCC and the Globes hardly ever match. But they did last year, unanimously. The closest like kind is LA Confidential, which won all three of these but lost the Globes and lost the Oscar. The Social Network won the Globes, famously.

But back to the NYFCC – theirs is, no matter how you slice it, a powerful voice. They reflect the tastes of a group of very smart and independent minded critics. It is, much of the time, different from what the industry believes is “best.” Either way, we’re still talking about voting on films. Either way, we’re still talking about winners. We’re still talking about voting. It’s a contest. It’s a game. It is nothing more or less than that.

However, the one thing the film awards race does do is promote films, actors and filmmakers. Money is made, careers are boosted, celebrities are born. What we do is silly. It isn’t Occupy Wall Street or brain cancer research or anything of the kind. It is deciding what a group of people will think is the best of the year. But “best” can change. It usually does.

Why people are interested in the race, beyond what it will do for their careers, is that we all have those we are championing.

Early guesses at to what the NYFCC will choose? It’s so hard to say right now, isn’t it? Usually, by now, we have an idea, but with so many films left to see … it’s almost impossible. I’m going to bet it’s something NOT Oscar-bound, though. I’m going to bet it’s something less along the lines of The Social Network and more along the lines of Tree of Life, or something much more obscure than that. Just a hunch. We’ll see if I’m right.

Tags

Terrific and thought-provoking article, Sasha. It’s proving to be a fascinating year so far…

My issue with the press release is the last part of this sentence:
“The Circle’s awards are also viewed — perhaps more accurately — as a principled alternative to the Oscars, honoring aesthetic merit in a forum that is immune to commercial and political pressures.”

From what I’ve heard about some of the lunacy that went into past NYFCC voting they are NOT immune to political pressure. Because of the complicated balloting there have been quite a few times that certain films and performances were deliberately sabotaged by members. Isn’t that political?

Everyone wants to think that they can be objective but it’s the smart man/woman who can admit that objectivity is something to strive for but usually never truly possible.

Terrific and thought-provoking article, Sasha. It’s proving to be a fascinating year so far…

My issue with the press release is the last part of this sentence:
“The Circle’s awards are also viewed — perhaps more accurately — as a principled alternative to the Oscars, honoring aesthetic merit in a forum that is immune to commercial and political pressures.”

From what I’ve heard about some of the lunacy that went into past NYFCC voting they are NOT immune to political pressure. Because of the complicated balloting there have been quite a few times that certain films and performances were deliberately sabotaged by members. Isn’t that political?

Everyone wants to think that they can be objective but it’s the smart man/woman who can admit that objectivity is something to strive for but usually never truly possible.

Jesse Crall

Wow, my fellow Angelenos actually did a nice job over the years except for the epic Coming Home fail in ’78. Lists like these really show how pointless a single award is. Consensus almost never happens and even when it comes close (Ordinary People) another film ends up looking much better in retrospect (Raging Bull).

Jesse Crall

Wow, my fellow Angelenos actually did a nice job over the years except for the epic Coming Home fail in ’78. Lists like these really show how pointless a single award is. Consensus almost never happens and even when it comes close (Ordinary People) another film ends up looking much better in retrospect (Raging Bull).

Diego

Sasha – How does this work with their (NYFCC) nominations if most of the flicks that are supposed to be awards contenders do not even get shown until after December 1?

Diego

Sasha – How does this work with their (NYFCC) nominations if most of the flicks that are supposed to be awards contenders do not even get shown until after December 1?

mariela

that’s what i was wondering too. they must be seeing them early, right?

mariela

that’s what i was wondering too. they must be seeing them early, right?

Dean

They cannot be “just about the films” if they are putting pressure on said films to be screened earlier than they otherwise would. It’s bullshit.

Dean

They cannot be “just about the films” if they are putting pressure on said films to be screened earlier than they otherwise would. It’s bullshit.

Tye-Grr

The picture of JT/Sean Parker giving the double bird made me laugh out loud in relation to the article. 🙂

Tye-Grr

The picture of JT/Sean Parker giving the double bird made me laugh out loud in relation to the article. 🙂

I feel the same way Dean. I’m suspicious of the NYFCC moving up earlier too. This smells like wanting to be first out of the gate, and having more of an influence on Oscar.

Paddy M

Not many films will have to be screened earlier than they would have anyway, if any at all. November 28 is only a few days before the NBR is announcing and was going to be announcing all along.

Paddy M

Not many films will have to be screened earlier than they would have anyway, if any at all. November 28 is only a few days before the NBR is announcing and was going to be announcing all along.

daveylow

The one thing I don’t like about the NYFCC awards is that the NY Times critics don’t vote. They have a lot of clout in the Northeast.

daveylow

The one thing I don’t like about the NYFCC awards is that the NY Times critics don’t vote. They have a lot of clout in the Northeast.

adam

If it truly is about distance not about AICN FIRST!!!!! (!!!) then they should do one of two things:

1. Announce their awards after the Oscars (that would create REAL, meaningful distance)

2. Announce their awards on January 1st.

If you want to create distance, you create distance from the movies, not distance from other awards. if you announce before the Oscars, you’re always going to be part of the Awards season NO MATTER WHAT. To move up your date doesn’t create distance, it just EXPANDS the awards season, it makes the problem you’re trying to solve worse, not better. But announcing before the end of the year means announcing before all the year’s films have been seen by the public, that automatically means any announcement before the end of the year is about influence on the awards season.

So those are your options that involve a semblance of integrity in terms of trying to avoid the dreaded ‘influence’ label, but they didn’t do that, they instead chose to try and increase their influence. Because being first is influential, as much as the screamers try to say otherwise, first matters. Moving up first is a naked, desperate grab to try and be influential, and any other argument is the height of bullshit.

adam

If it truly is about distance not about AICN FIRST!!!!! (!!!) then they should do one of two things:

1. Announce their awards after the Oscars (that would create REAL, meaningful distance)

2. Announce their awards on January 1st.

If you want to create distance, you create distance from the movies, not distance from other awards. if you announce before the Oscars, you’re always going to be part of the Awards season NO MATTER WHAT. To move up your date doesn’t create distance, it just EXPANDS the awards season, it makes the problem you’re trying to solve worse, not better. But announcing before the end of the year means announcing before all the year’s films have been seen by the public, that automatically means any announcement before the end of the year is about influence on the awards season.

So those are your options that involve a semblance of integrity in terms of trying to avoid the dreaded ‘influence’ label, but they didn’t do that, they instead chose to try and increase their influence. Because being first is influential, as much as the screamers try to say otherwise, first matters. Moving up first is a naked, desperate grab to try and be influential, and any other argument is the height of bullshit.

steve50

The entire awards season dance card has gotten so routine lately that I think it’s good that NYFCC is busting up the tradition a bit, and I do see them going for unusual choices this year, as a result. They’ve gone indie/foreign more often than any other circle, so I’ll wager that The Artist and Malick look pretty good for this group at the moment, with Colman, Fassbender, and maybe Spencer and Brooks making their cut. Just a shot in the dark, but it should be a real contrast to what we get from NBR shortly afterward.

steve50

The entire awards season dance card has gotten so routine lately that I think it’s good that NYFCC is busting up the tradition a bit, and I do see them going for unusual choices this year, as a result. They’ve gone indie/foreign more often than any other circle, so I’ll wager that The Artist and Malick look pretty good for this group at the moment, with Colman, Fassbender, and maybe Spencer and Brooks making their cut. Just a shot in the dark, but it should be a real contrast to what we get from NBR shortly afterward.

steve50

PS I love the photo choice for the topic – one of my favourite images from last year.

steve50

PS I love the photo choice for the topic – one of my favourite images from last year.

I think this move makes the race a bit more exciting since the NY critics are a bit more influential than the NBR (I think), or their at least among the mainstream critics whose work is most widely read.

I’ll predict that they give their fellow New Yorker Woody Allen a big push by naming ‘Midnight in Paris’ Best Film of the Year.

(A side note: I’ll never understand how critics can chide the Oscars or people who follow them. Sure, they aren’t the the final word on what is ‘Best’, but have you ever seen a group of sports columnists shit on the Super Bowl and/or the millions of fans who get excited for the big night?)

I think this move makes the race a bit more exciting since the NY critics are a bit more influential than the NBR (I think), or their at least among the mainstream critics whose work is most widely read.

I’ll predict that they give their fellow New Yorker Woody Allen a big push by naming ‘Midnight in Paris’ Best Film of the Year.

(A side note: I’ll never understand how critics can chide the Oscars or people who follow them. Sure, they aren’t the the final word on what is ‘Best’, but have you ever seen a group of sports columnists shit on the Super Bowl and/or the millions of fans who get excited for the big night?)

They set their date already. They probably won’t. Or maybe they will just announce early for the hell of it.

Sasha Stone

Can NBR still move up their announcement?

They set their date already. They probably won’t. Or maybe they will just announce early for the hell of it.

Ricky Schweitzer

I think NYFCC will go with The Descendants or The Artist… forecasting a potential sweep. I haven’t seen either film so this is just going on gut reaction.

What an amazing thing it would be if they chose Drive, even without NYT support.

It would also be amazing to see them go with a sight unseen, (like when NBR chose Letters From Iwo Jima, imho the best film of 2006), like J Edgar or ELAIC. We shall see.

Ricky Schweitzer

I think NYFCC will go with The Descendants or The Artist… forecasting a potential sweep. I haven’t seen either film so this is just going on gut reaction.

What an amazing thing it would be if they chose Drive, even without NYT support.

It would also be amazing to see them go with a sight unseen, (like when NBR chose Letters From Iwo Jima, imho the best film of 2006), like J Edgar or ELAIC. We shall see.

Zooey

@ Simone, the NYFCC doesn’t need to move its date to have more influence on Oscar. If an early date means anything, then the NBR – usually presenting a whole week ahead of the others – would have been the most influential one. And actually, unlike the other critics’ groups, the NYFCC has real history and real prestige attached to its vote. The exact same group existed in the early days of Oscar – it’s 7 years younger than the Oscars, so for an award presented by the critics of NY from 1935 until now (and just for the record: LAFCA started in 1975, some 40 years later), the NYFCC doesn’t need much to be taken seriously. And on the other hand this is the critics’ group that gets the last laugh. They honored Citizen Kane as the best picture of 1941. No other group can state the same. Other than that, the NYFCC victory usually gets attention and if you think of Marcia Gay Harden – she won the Oscar with the support of the NYFCC only. No other wins, no Globe/SAG/BAFTA/BFCA nods.

Zooey

@ Simone, the NYFCC doesn’t need to move its date to have more influence on Oscar. If an early date means anything, then the NBR – usually presenting a whole week ahead of the others – would have been the most influential one. And actually, unlike the other critics’ groups, the NYFCC has real history and real prestige attached to its vote. The exact same group existed in the early days of Oscar – it’s 7 years younger than the Oscars, so for an award presented by the critics of NY from 1935 until now (and just for the record: LAFCA started in 1975, some 40 years later), the NYFCC doesn’t need much to be taken seriously. And on the other hand this is the critics’ group that gets the last laugh. They honored Citizen Kane as the best picture of 1941. No other group can state the same. Other than that, the NYFCC victory usually gets attention and if you think of Marcia Gay Harden – she won the Oscar with the support of the NYFCC only. No other wins, no Globe/SAG/BAFTA/BFCA nods.

I still hope for Dragon Tattoo, the movie is highly expected and all, Fincher will still be one of the few “most deserving” (With Malick and…Well, with Malick).

Zooey

I love predicting the NYFCC.

Best Film – The Tree of Life (alt. The Artist / Shame)
Best Director – Terrence Mallick for The Tree of Life (alt. Shame)
Best Actor – Michael Fassbender in Shame / Jane Eyre (alt. Jean DuJardin)
Best Actress – Meryl Streep in The Iron Lady (alt. Elisabeth Olsen)
Best Supporting Actor – John Hawkes in Martha Marcy May Marlene (alt. Albert Brooks)
Best Supporting Actress – Janet McTeer in Albert Nobbs (alt. Viola Davis)
Best Screenplay – The Descendants (alt. Tinker Tailor Soldier Play)
Best Cinematography – The Tree of Life (alt. The Artist)

Zooey

I love predicting the NYFCC.

Best Film – The Tree of Life (alt. The Artist / Shame)
Best Director – Terrence Mallick for The Tree of Life (alt. Shame)
Best Actor – Michael Fassbender in Shame / Jane Eyre (alt. Jean DuJardin)
Best Actress – Meryl Streep in The Iron Lady (alt. Elisabeth Olsen)
Best Supporting Actor – John Hawkes in Martha Marcy May Marlene (alt. Albert Brooks)
Best Supporting Actress – Janet McTeer in Albert Nobbs (alt. Viola Davis)
Best Screenplay – The Descendants (alt. Tinker Tailor Soldier Play)
Best Cinematography – The Tree of Life (alt. The Artist)

Zooey

And what about the possibility of Kirsten Dunst actually winning best actress for Melancholia? It could happen here.

Zooey

And what about the possibility of Kirsten Dunst actually winning best actress for Melancholia? It could happen here.

Sasha Stone

And what about the possibility of Kirsten Dunst actually winning best actress for Melancholia? It could happen here.

No, it could not.

Sasha Stone

And what about the possibility of Kirsten Dunst actually winning best actress for Melancholia? It could happen here.

No, it could not.

Maxim

EVERYTHING, you said is flawed. The best way to create distance is not done by moving a date but by picking unique winners. In retrospect the awards will be remembered not for WHEN they took place but by WHO was awarded.

Maxim

EVERYTHING, you said is flawed. The best way to create distance is not done by moving a date but by picking unique winners. In retrospect the awards will be remembered not for WHEN they took place but by WHO was awarded.

Dominik

“And what about the possibility of Kirsten Dunst actually winning best actress for Melancholia? It could happen here.”

She would deserve it, “Melancholia” is an amazing film and Kirsten Dunst gives a performance nothing short of brilliant.
The reason she will very probably be no factor at this years awards race is IMO not because of van Triers statements about that ugly guy with the strange mustache (because no one could seriously blame HER for that), but because her performance is too subtle and not showy, not at all.
This is not the kind of performance that gets the attention it totally deserves. Sad, but true.

Dominik

“And what about the possibility of Kirsten Dunst actually winning best actress for Melancholia? It could happen here.”

She would deserve it, “Melancholia” is an amazing film and Kirsten Dunst gives a performance nothing short of brilliant.
The reason she will very probably be no factor at this years awards race is IMO not because of van Triers statements about that ugly guy with the strange mustache (because no one could seriously blame HER for that), but because her performance is too subtle and not showy, not at all.
This is not the kind of performance that gets the attention it totally deserves. Sad, but true.

Rufussondheim

If I am not mistaken, Melancholia will not be eligible for Oscar consideration. It’s premiering on Video On Demand before it opens in theaters.

I recall back in 1994, that John Dahl Movie that wasn’t Red Rock West was ineligible because it didn’t debut in theaters. That was a memorable decision because the actress (was it Linda Fiorentino?) would have been a shoo-in for a nomination had it been Oscar eligible.

I don’t know the rules like others here, but I would be more than willing to wager even money that this will be the case.

Rufussondheim

If I am not mistaken, Melancholia will not be eligible for Oscar consideration. It’s premiering on Video On Demand before it opens in theaters.

I recall back in 1994, that John Dahl Movie that wasn’t Red Rock West was ineligible because it didn’t debut in theaters. That was a memorable decision because the actress (was it Linda Fiorentino?) would have been a shoo-in for a nomination had it been Oscar eligible.

I don’t know the rules like others here, but I would be more than willing to wager even money that this will be the case.

The NYFCC is a worse offender when it comes to “playing the game” than any of the other major critics groups besides BFCA (which are only dubiously named critics). While LA, NY, Boston, and even NBR have shown themselves to be independent thinkers capable of throwing out choices they fully expect will go nowhere in the race, the NYFCC almost never does this. You know what their last truly out of left field, inspired pick was? Eugene Levy for “A Mighty Wind”, 8 years ago (and kudos to them for selecting ROTK the same year, a dicey move for a prestigious critics group that opened the floodgates on that sweep). The rest of the time it’s been critical favourites or major awards contenders down the line. Part of this is their ridiculous voting system which allows members to block the choices of other’s resulting in weak, compromise choices like the year “Milk” won.

The NYFCC is a worse offender when it comes to “playing the game” than any of the other major critics groups besides BFCA (which are only dubiously named critics). While LA, NY, Boston, and even NBR have shown themselves to be independent thinkers capable of throwing out choices they fully expect will go nowhere in the race, the NYFCC almost never does this. You know what their last truly out of left field, inspired pick was? Eugene Levy for “A Mighty Wind”, 8 years ago (and kudos to them for selecting ROTK the same year, a dicey move for a prestigious critics group that opened the floodgates on that sweep). The rest of the time it’s been critical favourites or major awards contenders down the line. Part of this is their ridiculous voting system which allows members to block the choices of other’s resulting in weak, compromise choices like the year “Milk” won.